Confirmation! Finally admit we have no real evidence without Bolton

[BobRyan]

1. Confirmation democratic Senators did not actually "believe" they had "confirmation" in all of that supposedly "overwhelming" evidence from the house -- right up until new unconfirmed unquoted source found in January 27 -

'SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: This is stunning. It goes right to the heart of the charges against the president. Ambassador Bolton essentially confirms the president committed the offenses charged in the first article of impeachment. It boils down to one thing. We have a witness with first-hand evidence of the president's actions for which he is on trial. He is ready and willing to testify. How can Senate Republicans not vote to call that witness and request his documents?"

So now finally "a first hand witness" and "confirmation" after all these months. in an unquoted manuscript..from an unnamed source.. that the President "wanted" something.

Like I sometimes say "I don't want to diet" but then I do diet anyway because I want to lose weight.

1.b Confirmation that democrats in the Senate believe - that to "settle" for the "overwhelming evidence" from the House Managers as "the evidence for impeachment" is to participate in a "cover up" of the President's actions by relying on weak evidence totally unconvincing when it comes to supporting the articles of impeachment.

Quoting nothing: we have this claim today in the press - the manuscript says "the President wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens."

1. Does not say he actually told some one to take action on that.
2.Does not say he told the Ukraine that
3.Does not say that he wanted the Ukraine to see this as incentive to do what the President wants -- so make sure Ukraine knows about it.
4. Does not say that Ukraine was then told the President will "continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens."

I don't "want" to diet to lose weight ... but I "do". So are we deep into "Thought crimes" with Bolton?


1.c Confirmation that what Senator Schumer actually wants is all of Bolton's phone texts and emails -- and so also with the other witnesses he wants to pile into this... never ending program.

=================================================

2. Confirmation that the media has been conditioning Americans to believe in " thought crimes"

If the president said he wanted the aid held up he broke the law, .

btw

Over half a dozen examples were put out in public in the last two days by Trump's lawyers showing nation after nation with "aid held up" for whatever reason the President determines as he implements his foreign policy. The reason they are so happy that everyone knows what the House managers already know about aid held up all the time as a matter of working policy .. President after President... is that this thing has gotten spun wayyy sideways in the news by now -- far adrift from reality.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yeah, the reports about Bolton (and the evidence from Parnas) are additional confirmation of Donald's direct involvement in the attempts to trade a weapons deal for foreign interference in our election. Pretty sad the GOP Senate wants to ignore that evidence.

Confirmation democratic Senators did not actually "believe" they had "confirmation"

According to what source?

 

[BobRyan]

Yeah, the reports about Bolton (and the evidence from Parnas) are additional confirmation

Wouldn't "additional confirmation" have been great words for Schumer to have made? But the problem is that if he had said it was only "additional confirmation" then he would be admitting he already HAD confirmation and he could not then cast the whole thing as a "cover up" as he did in his statement. Because already having confirmation is not "a cover up".

Democrats argue that their own case is so weak that to be satisfied with it - is a cover up in favor of the President.

 

[KCfromNC]

Wouldn't "additional confirmation" have been great words for Schumer to have made?

If I had to resort to basing my defense of a politician onto guessing why another one didn't say a particular word, I'd start to wonder why I was defending them in the first place.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

What evidence? There is no evidence! Read the report! No collusion, no obstruction! If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit! What about the emails!!?? Lock her up! Benghazi!!!

 

[DaisyDay]

What evidence? There is no evidence! Read the report! No collusion, no obstruction! If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit! What about the emails!!?? Lock her up! Benghazi!!!

You forgot "Biden!!!".

 

[essentialsaltes]

I wonder if that's why the House asked Bolton to testify, and why Trump forbade it.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

You forgot "Biden!!!".

I’m saving Biden and AOC for later…

 

[GACfan]

What evidence? There is no evidence! Read the report! No collusion, no obstruction! If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit! What about the emails!!?? Lock her up! Benghazi!!!

​

You forgot "Biden!!!".

And Obama, and any Never-Trump Republicans or "Do Nothing" Democrats in recent memory.

 

[BobRyan]

Yeah, the reports about Bolton (and the evidence from Parnas) are additional confirmation

Wouldn't "additional confirmation" have been great words for Schumer to have made? But the problem is that if he had said it was only "additional confirmation" then he would be admitting he already HAD confirmation and he could not then cast the whole thing as a "cover up" as he did in his statement. Because already having confirmation is not "a cover up".

Democrats argue that their own case is so weak that to be satisfied with it - is a cover up in favor of the President.

If I had to resort to basing my defense of a politician onto guessing why another one didn't say a particular word, I'd start to wonder why I was defending them in the first place.

Then maybe you could suggest "a way out " of that dilemma where he wants to claim he finally has "Confirmation" for his impeachment articles with Bolton's supposed words not seen by us -- and that to not have Bolton would be to protect the President from impeachment via a "cover up" -- while at the same time trying to include your statement that he ALREADY has all the confirmation needed .. so then no such cover up can exist when fully confirming evidence is already available without Bolton.

How you get to the point of "having it both ways" will be interesting to read through for me.

 

[BobRyan]

I wonder if that's why the House asked Bolton to testify, and why Trump forbade it.

Maybe it is because they still don't have the "confirmation" that they need for their articles - without Bolton so they want to say it would be a "cover up" not to have it.

Or maybe it is because as Schumer stated in his video in the OP - he wants not just a discussion with Bolton - but also all his texts and emails -- to open up another unbounded investigation on all things thought-police.

Or maybe it is because in the united states we have exec priv discussions avail to every President so they can actually do their job.

So many possibilities.

 

[KCfromNC]

Wouldn't "additional confirmation" have been great words for Schumer to have made?

The best words. Perfect. No one has better words.

But the problem is that if he had said it was only "additional confirmation" then he would be admitting he already HAD confirmation and he could not then cast the whole thing as a "cover up" as he did in his statement. Because already having confirmation is not "a cover up".

I love that these defenses of Donald now depend on people believing there's so much evidence against him that it's no big deal that his former National Security Advisor puts it in writing that Donald linked military aid to Ukraine with personal favors for himself.

Then maybe you could suggest "a way out " of that dilemma where he wants to claim he finally has "Confirmation" for his impeachment articles with Bolton's supposed words not seen by us -- and that to not have Bolton would be to protect the President from impeachment via a "cover up" -- while at the same time trying to include your statement that he ALREADY has all the confirmation needed .. so then no such cover up can exist when fully confirming evidence is already available without Bolton.

Anyone else find this the least bit convincing? Might as well start telling us about Chewbacca wanting to live on Endor at this point and just get it over with.

 

[mark46]

Why are we acting as if this is anything but a partisan political fight?

Pelosi once said that there should no impeachment without significant bi-partisan support. Many on the left strongly disagreed. Trump's actions "forced" her to allow Schiff to start hearings. Eventually, she was "forced" to have the House start official impeachment hearings, and impeach the president, without Republican support.

Nothing has really changed. Impeachment was wrong after Mueller, was wrong when it happened, and wrong now. The only issue is how long this process will continue, before the inevitable vote to acquit.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why are we acting as if this is anything but a partisan political fight?

Because there is a truth to the matter. And it's worth finding out.

 

[variant]

Because there is a truth to the matter. And it's worth finding out.

Depends on your value system. It doesn't seem like some people value finding out the truth at all if it doesn't suit them.

 

[mark46]

Depends on your value system. It doesn't seem like some people value finding out the truth at all if it doesn't suit them.

For others, they already know the truth of the matter, and a couple of months more of a trial isn't worth wasting campaign time, and possibly losing the election.
====
Warren supporters will be saying that next week when she has her disaster in Iowa, one that MIGHT have been avoided if she spent these last two weeks on the campaign trail.
=====
It is NOT a matter of seeing Bolton speak. That will could happen whether he is a witness or not. In fact, it only if he is called that there is a possibility of Trump claiming privilege, taking the issue to the courts, and getting Bolton not to speak until after the election.

 

[mark46]

Our value system requires us to hear the truth. That will happen when Bolton is interviewed many, many times this year.

Our PERSONAL POLITICAL views require Bolton to be a witness. And to be clear, these are not partisan, in that they will not necessarily help the Democratic Party win elections.

Depends on your value system. It doesn't seem like some people value finding out the truth at all if it doesn't suit them.

 

[BobRyan]

Our value system requires us to hear the truth. That will happen when Bolton is interviewed many, many times this year.

because all of those witnesses in the house were pretty much nothing... we finally "have something" now that we have a manuscript we can't see with a statement that cannot be quoted... amounting to a hearsay bit that the president "wanted" something???

And "that" is all it took for democratic senators to sweep away all the supposedly overwhelming evidence in the Impeachment trial and declare "this" to finally be the real deal???

 

[BobRyan]

.
Our PERSONAL POLITICAL views require Bolton to be a witness.

How is it that all the overwhelming witness testimony from house manager witnesses is no longer "sufficient"???

 

[Allandavid]

1. Confirmation democratic Senators did not actually "believe" they had "confirmation" in all of that supposedly "overwhelming" evidence from the house -- right up until new unconfirmed unquoted source found in January 27 -

'SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: This is stunning. It goes right to the heart of the charges against the president. Ambassador Bolton essentially confirms the president committed the offenses charged in the first article of impeachment. It boils down to one thing. We have a witness with first-hand evidence of the president's actions for which he is on trial. He is ready and willing to testify. How can Senate Republicans not vote to call that witness and request his documents?"

So now finally "a first hand witness" and "confirmation" after all these months. in an unquoted manuscript..from an unnamed source.. that the President "wanted" something.

Like I sometimes say "I don't want to diet" but then I do diet anyway because I want to lose weight.

1.b Confirmation that democrats in the Senate believe - that to "settle" for the "overwhelming evidence" from the House Managers as "the evidence for impeachment" is to participate in a "cover up" of the President's actions by relying on weak evidence totally unconvincing when it comes to supporting the articles of impeachment.

Quoting nothing: we have this claim today in the press - the manuscript says "the President wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens."

1. Does not say he actually told some one to take action on that.
2.Does not say he told the Ukraine that
3.Does not say that he wanted the Ukraine to see this as incentive to do what the President wants -- so make sure Ukraine knows about it.
4. Does not say that Ukraine was then told the President will "continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens."

I don't "want" to diet to lose weight ... but I "do". So are we deep into "Thought crimes" with Bolton?


1.c Confirmation that what Senator Schumer actually wants is all of Bolton's phone texts and emails -- and so also with the other witnesses he wants to pile into this... never ending program.

=================================================

2. Confirmation that the media has been conditioning Americans to believe in " thought crimes"



btw

Over half a dozen examples were put out in public in the last two days by Trump's lawyers showing nation after nation with "aid held up" for whatever reason the President determines as he implements his foreign policy. The reason they are so happy that everyone knows what the House managers already know about aid held up all the time as a matter of working policy .. President after President... is that this thing has gotten spun wayyy sideways in the news by now -- far adrift from reality.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...